Daniel Petzer v X-Press Graph-X Pty Ltd Summary

[2024] FWC 1693

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.65B - Application for a dispute about requests for flexible work arrangements

Daniel Petzer
v

X-Press Graph-X Pty Ltd

(C2024/3634)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 27 JUNE 2024

Request for flexible working arrangements – decision to express an opinion

Following a conference this morning, and in the course of dealing with a dispute under s 65B by means other than arbitration (see s 65B(4)(a)), I decided to express to the parties an opinion, which was that the respondent appeared to me to have reasonable business grounds for refusing the changes sought by the applicant. In essence, I formed this opinion because the respondent is a small family business, the applicant is its warehouse manager, and the changes sought would mean that the respondent would be without its manager at the start of shift three days a week every second week. Other employees could not reasonably cover the applicant’s absence. And although the alternative childcare arrangements available to the applicant are inconvenient and involve some expense, they do not appear to be unreasonable. I suggested certain further steps that the parties may wish to take to resolve the matter. I will close the file in two weeks.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Fair Work Commission dealt with a dispute concerning a request for flexible working arrangements made by Daniel Petzer to X-Press Graph-X Pty Ltd. The respondent, X-Press Graph-X Pty Ltd, is a small family business, and the applicant, Daniel Petzer, is the warehouse manager. Petzer sought to adjust his work schedule to accommodate childcare needs, requesting to work fewer days and potentially with different hours. The case was heard under section 65B of the Fair Work Act 2009, which pertains to applications for disputes about requests for flexible work arrangements.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the respondent had reasonable business grounds for refusing the applicant's request for flexible work arrangements. The Commission had to consider the nature of the business, the role of the applicant within the company, and the potential impact of the requested changes on the business operations. Additionally, the Commission examined the reasonableness of the childcare arrangements available to the applicant and whether they provided a sufficient basis for refusing the requested changes.

In delivering the decision, Deputy President Colman noted that X-Press Graph-X Pty Ltd is a small family business, and the applicant’s role as the warehouse manager is critical, particularly during the start of shift three days a week every second week. The Deputy President found that the business could not reasonably cover the applicant's absence, and the proposed flexible arrangements would significantly disrupt operations. While the childcare arrangements available to the applicant were inconvenient and involved some expense, they were deemed not unreasonable. Consequently, the Deputy President expressed an opinion that the respondent had reasonable business grounds for refusing the changes sought by the applicant. The Deputy President also suggested steps the parties might take to resolve the matter further and indicated that the file would be closed in two weeks.

The Commission did not make a formal order but suggested that the parties consider further steps to resolve the matter. The Deputy President's opinion provided guidance to both parties on the reasonableness of the respondent's decision to refuse the flexible working arrangements.

Daniel Petzer v X-Press Graph-X Pty Ltd

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established